Recently, social media personality Pattie Gonia shared a video with her more than 2 million Instagram and TikTok followers to draw attention to a lawsuit by clothing brand Patagonia filed against her in January.
Pattie’s 7-minute video breaking her silence and delivering a “simple call to action” begs the question whether going public during a dispute makes practical or legal sense. The following are some main questions a brand owner’s legal and PR teams should collectively consider and answer before taking a dispute to the court of public opinion.
- What do you hope to gain from going public about the case? (e.g., Does going public increase or decrease the likelihood the dispute will be resolved quickly and in your favor?)
- What if you’re wrong about how the public or the other side will react? (e.g., Are you prepared for any unanticipated fall out?)
- Are there legal implications to going public? (e.g., Will you decrease your chances of legal success by what’s revealed when going public?)
Answering these, and related questions, will help you determine whether going public, such as mobilizing your followers to weigh in on an ongoing legal dispute, is a winning strategy.
The public response to Pattie’s video was significant and, initially, strongly in her favor. However, as interest in the matter grew and online commentary asserting that Pattie had misrepresented the situation and nuances of trademark law started popping up, opinions began to change. Public support for Patagonia grew when a clip emerged of Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert discussing the recent attention on the lawsuit at a conference. By the time Pattie posted a follow up video responding to the clip of Gellert on May 30, 2026, the comments on Pattie’s own video were much more conflicted on the issue. Even trademark attorneys are divided, with some saying Pattie crossed the line between infringement and parody the second she filed a trademark application[1] and others arguing that proving likelihood of confusion will be a challenge.[2]
The clip of Gellert demonstrated the company’s commitment to the lawsuit, affirming the stance the company took in a statement posted on its website on January 21, 2026, when it first filed. Patagonia’s May 31, 2026 Instagram post provided its own terms, further suggesting the company is not backing down from its legal and public positions. These responses highlight the value of a strong brand and related trademark rights. As powerful as public favor is, having and maintaining a strong brand can be more powerful and more important. A strong brand requires trademark protection and, often, asserting the rights afforded by such protection to maintain and increase the strength of such rights. This lawsuit, and Patagonia’s messaging regarding the matter, demonstrate its belief that the value of protecting its trademark rights outweighed the potential harm of public backlash.
So, was speaking out worth it? From the outside looking in, it’s hard to tell at this point. Pattie’s stated goal in posting her initial video was to convince Patagonia, through pressure from her following, to drop the lawsuit. This objective has yet to be accomplished. Moreover, Gellert has commented that Pattie’s statement didn’t help negotiations, and he previously thought they were close to a resolution. It seems that Pattie may have underestimated how much not only Patagonia, but the public at large, recognizes the importance of trademarks.
Conversely, earlier this year Chloe’s Giant Cookies shared that she was being sued over the name of her company. The post received significant social media attention, which appears to have helped in the resolution of the dispute. Chloe’s Giant Cookies also received an increase in business in response to the post. The potentially contrasting outcomes for Chloe’s Giant Cookies and Pattie Gonia emphasize the importance of understanding the legal and PR implications involved with discussing ongoing litigation publicly.
On June 8, 2026, the Judge in the Patagonia case issued an order for mediation, which could be an opportunity for the parties to come to an amicable resolution short of trial, so the jury is still out on whether going public was the right decision.
We will continue to follow developments in this case. Please reach out to your Dinsmore trademark attorney if you have any questions.
[1] Minyvonne Burke, Drag queen Pattie Gonia asks apparel company Patagonia to drop trademark infringement lawsuit, NBC News (2026)
[2] Moises Mendez II, Patagonia vs. Pattie Gonia: Who has the stronger case? Trademark lawyers weigh in, OUT (2026)